Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I presume it will exist. In my early college years when I did not know what it was I wanted to do, I studied philosophy and I always found Descartes extremely interesting. One of the great Cartesian principles, in wondering what the world is really about is, "I think, therefore I am". I think the Bar Council exists, therefore it will be. It will have its code, which will have to be in compliance with the legislation enacted by the Houses of the Oireachtas to the extent that there is any oversight for ensuring that restrictive practices are not enforced. Currently, there are restrictive practices. Those restrictive practices prevent members of the Bar forming partnerships with other members of the Bar. They also prevent members of the Bar forming partnerships with solicitors. The restrictive practices prevent a person who is a barrister from remaining a barrister if he or she is employed in a solicitors firm. We had the bizarre situation recently where a well-known English firm of solicitors decided to set up offices in Ireland. The firm wanted to employ solicitors in Ireland as well as individuals with particular legal expertise and, as I understand, employed a barrister. The barrister wanted to continue to do what the barrister had always done, which is to provide expert legal services and be entitled to appear in court but if the barrister had remained a barrister while in the employ of a solicitors firm, he or she might have been struck off by the Bar. The barrister did a very simple, chameleon-like thing and because the rules now provide for it was able to transmogrify from being a barrister into being a solicitor within a short number of weeks. Ergo, the barrister who was a barrister is now a solicitor and can continue to do exactly what the barrister did, which is to give legal advice and appear in court.
This legislation, based on the perspective of providing additional competition and removing barriers to competition, having regard to providing alternative means to deliver and receive legal services, makes it clear that a specific element of the Bar's code of practice will no longer be legal in this State. It is as simple as that. The Bar will continue to exist and flourish, I have no doubt and I wish everyone well in that context because members of the Bar perform an extremely important role in providing legal services. Despite some perceptions to contrary, I have the greatest of respect for lawyers in both professions who have great expertise, who do very interesting and challenging work and who perform a very important role in protecting the rights of individuals. However, protecting the rights of individuals has nothing to do with maintaining restrictive practices that developed in the 1800s. We live in a different world. It is unfortunate that there is a need to maintain two rolls. It would have been helpful if there could have been a single roll of barristers, whether they were formerly members of the Law Library or not. Ideally, barristers would be barristers and we would have a single roll, with some choosing to become members of the Law Library and those who are not members of the library practising as they deem appropriate, perhaps in the manner mentioned by Deputy McNamara.
It would be preferable to have a single roll but I am advised that the Bar is not agreeable to maintaining a roll which includes members of the barrister profession who are not members of the Law Library. I personally think that is regrettable because whether one is a member of the Law Library or not, if one is a practising barrister who has graduated through the process of becoming a barrister, passed the exams and gone through all of the training then I do not see any particular reason whywe should need to maintain two separate rolls, but apparently we do. I say that as a member of the solicitors profession. Since 1971 solicitors have been able to do advocacy work throughout the courts system as well as general solicitor's work. Over the years, I was one of the very few solicitors who worked on a regular basis as an advocate in the higher courts. There are many solicitors who do not want to engage that way and I fully appreciate and understand that. There are many who act as advocates in the District Court but not in the other courts. It is a matter of choice. The Law Society did not feel the need to maintain some exclusive roll of solicitors who are advocates in the higher courts. I do not understand why the membership of a library should determine whether one is excluded from a particular roll when one is a practising, qualified barrister who has gone through the King's Inns and acquired all of the relevant qualifications that entitle one to be recognised as a barrister. Unfortunately, it appears to be the case that we have to maintain two rolls.